The UK government announced today it is to spend £2.95m on supplying "urgently needed" contraceptives to Uganda.

In a week that has seen the Department for International Development (DfID) cut spending on development awareness projects, the development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, sought to live up to his pledge to direct more money towards "frontline services" with a move designed to give women "more control over their lives".

The money will be channelled through the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which together with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provides about 95% of all contraceptives in Uganda, and will be spent on condoms (45 million of them), contraceptive implants and pills.

Mitchell said: "Around the world over 200 million women still do not have access to modern contraception. We are determined to give women more control over their lives so they can decide when and how many children they have. This is a crucial step in helping countries out of poverty and will be a major priority for us."

He added: "Ending non-priority spending and taking tough steps to get value for money in DfID's budget means we can concentrate our aid where it makes most difference - on improving the lives of the world's poorest people."

But how do we know this £2.95 will make the most difference and does represent value for money?

Empowering women

DfID believes these extra supplies could avert thousands of abortions and unwanted pregnancies in Uganda each year, and will go some way to empower women. But, as we've seen in Katine, the sub-county in north-east Uganda where Guardian readers and Barclays are helping to fund development work, this is no easy task.

We've reported a number of times on the cultural and logistical challenges of providing women with contraceptives, particularly those living in rural communities like Katine - who would fall under Mitchell's definition of the world's poorest.

Only last week, Richard M Kavuma starkly illustrated what can happen when women attempt to take control of their lives – they receive a beating from their husbands.

In many households men will have the final say on whether their wives can use contraceptives; pride is still attached to the number of children a man has, which means many are still unwilling to allow their wives to consider family planning. Big families also offer future financial and a form of social security in a country where the state does little to look after you in old age.

It could be argued that messages from central government have done little to challenge this view. Despite presiding over a country with the highest unmet need for contraceptives in east Africa, and being warned by donors that the country needs to lower population growth if it is to meet the Millennium Development Goals, Yoweri Museveni has been vocal about the need to increase population if the country is to develop economically. The Catholic church, which still holds sway in Uganda, has also spoken out against artificial contraception.

Medical staff in Katine have called on development partners to do more to educate people about the importance of family planning and smaller families. Will any of this £2.95m be used for that?

As well as cultural sensitivities, accessing contraceptives is another stumbling block for women. How will these 45 million condoms, for example, be distributed around Uganda?

With all his talk of accountability and value for money, I would have thought Mitchell would have provided a few more details in what is, after all, his first public announcement on aid spending since arriving at DfID. Details such as how his department plans to address cultural sensitivities around family planning? Why DfID thinks channelling money through the UN is the best route, rather than through grassroots NGOs or national government? How can the public be sure that this represents good value for money? How will DfID monitor when and where these contraceptives end up? Who will distribute them on the ground? And why Uganda?

As we've found with the Katine project, which has sought to explain development processes, these sorts of questions are not easy, or quick, to answer. But if Mitchell really is passionate about making a difference to the lives of the world's poorest and being accountable for taxpayers' money, he might want to consider addressing these finer points in the future.